User talk:Davidmholland

July 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Coriolis force has been reverted. Your edit here to Coriolis force was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWhpm5hV2q4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Coriolis force. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note, see first level warning at User talk:99.237.238.130. Also have a look at wp:Edit warring and wp:BRD. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Coriolis force, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: phrases like "unfortunately, the following misleading argument is often found on the web and even in text books. The argument attempts to apply conservation of angular momentum in a non-iertial reference frame and goes as follows." are pure and plain wp:original research, and not acceptable in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Coriolis force shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Coriolis force
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not engage again in edit warring at Coriolis force and please follow instead WP:BRD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Coriolis force. - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Davidmholland. Please see User_talk:EdJohnston. It looks like you are resuming the same edit war at Coriolis force for which you were blocked back in 2018. Please don't do that. You are risking a longer block. The only discussion from you I could find was here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)